Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Laokin
Well, since you do this for a living, you are clearly a valuable asset in getting to the bottom of this. However, if you haven't read the whole
thread, I suggest you do. This is not a hoax, and the person I received these photos from commented in this thread a short time ago. Can you at
least hypothetically entertain the idea that is was simply opened in an editing program in order to be viewed? Look at Drunkenparrot's post.
Sure I can entertain the idea, it would be quite awesome if it was absolutely legit...
Here, maybe I can help you afterall....
In my experience, it would be impossible for this anomoly to be produced by the camera's optics... It's simply to bright on the color chart to be
considered a digital anomoly, as well as it's lack of pixelization in the actually anomoly itself.
There is only two conclusions that can be made;
1.) The seemingly obvious that it is in fact a hoax, or
2.) The possibility that it is indeed real, and if so -- the camera caught something in an invisible (to the human eye) spectrum of light, in which
case this would be a fantastic find.
If option 2, it will probably go unnoticed for the fact that it's not easily cooberated, and can be reproduced using after effects programs relatively
simple, with little effort.
As I already stated, Exif data doesn't really mean anything, as it can be added or removed with relative ease.
(To add it to a picture that is authentic, you simply open the picture in your favorite editing program of choice, and save it to a new container via
that program. To remove it from a fake, you would take an authentic picture of the fake after the effects have been done... It may be a little tricky
to not lose some saturation, but someone with a little bit of know how can match the lighting with relative ease.)
Hence, Exif data has no merit on either side of this argument.
That is about the best I can do... Hope I could satisfy, as my intent was never to be malicious to begin with...
I apologize for seeming brash, maybe it was an instict reaction since I've seen so many photos like this before, that I carry over previous dogma from
other examination into this one... and I admit, that -- that isn't entirely fair.
All things considered, I'm still on the side that it was most likely a hoax, but I do verify that if the story hasn't been sensationalized... and is
in all it's glory, the absolute truth.... than this theoretically could be true... and the fact of the matter is that reproduction doesn't prove that
the original wasn't authentic.
But again, I don't subscribe to that chain of thought.
I'm not one of those people that is scared, I believe in the potential for there to be ghosts. I don't just look at pictures and scream fake
either... I analyze them to see if there is any evidence left over by the tools of my trade. If I can't find any evidence of alteration, I will
proclaim that the image is most likely real. People will always claim "shop" against anything that they personally don't believe in.... but these are
the very same people not qualified to make such statements, and as such... their statements hold no merit.
It's the opposite of an urban legend, just because mass people don't believe something is possible, doesn't make it a fact, and vice versa, would be
the case of any urban legend... where in people completely believe things that are known to be false.
These people don't get a voice, when it comes to credibly investigating such cases. I just thought, I should make that clear.
Prevaricator87 is the exact reason I think the image is faked, his conclusion as to why the original is real, is really only a matter of photoediting
skill... if I wanted to create anomolies to remove smooth edging to proport that fact that it's indeed real, I could easily rough it up a bit...
But like I said, reproduction doesn't prove if the original was fake or not, all it does is prove that a different means can reach the same end.
Although with my experience in photo editing, and me considering the official story, and not being able to cooberate it myself, I can only go with
Occam's Razor here, that the simplest solution is most likely the most accurate... and as such, I come to deduce that the original photo is most
likely a fraud, for the afformentioned reasons above....
Like I said though, there is no way of knowing for sure, short of being the person who took the picture.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Laokin because:
(no reason given)